Okayama, Hideo. Translated by Dale W. Little. “Fundamentalism and War” (原理主義と戦争). Japan Evangelical Association Theological Commission Pamphlet 6 (May 2006): 61-74.
Link to pages: [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ]
I. CHRISTIANITY AND WAR
I.A. SCRIPTURE AND NON-VIOLENCE
I.A.1. THE OLD TESTAMENT AND NON-VIOLENCE
Christian fundamentalism often quotes the Old Testament as the Biblical basis for the “just war” position. Certainly the Old Testament seems to affirm war, even seemingly supporting it positively. God is the “Lord of hosts/armies,” the God of war. He orders the annihilation of his enemies.
But that kind of interpretation of the Old Testament is problematic. First, the purpose of Old Testament war was to train the people of God in their faith. The purpose of battle was to test the obedience of the people of God, not to take revenge or commit murder.
Second, in Old Testament war the absolute sovereignty of God is made clear. This purpose is vividly shown in the battle with Pharaoh's army where victory was won by means of ocean and darkness, in the battle of Jericho where victory came by the sound of horns and shouting, and in the battle of Gideon where victory came through 300 men. War in the Old Testament was for these purposes, limited by the parameters given by God, so that war itself was not generally approved. The major principle from the decalogue, “You shall not murder,” penetrates the Old and New Testaments (Craigie, 2001).
I.A.2. THE NEW TESTAMENT AND NON-VIOLENCE
When interpreting the Bible, the New Testament always takes priority over the Old Testament because of the progress of revelation. The Old Testament must be read in light of the New Testament and in light of Christ. Therefore we cannot deduce doctrinal principles (e.g., just war) from only the Old Testament.
The New Testament asserts pacifism and non-violence. In contrast to the Old Testament, the New Testament never describes victory over the world by means of the military power of the people of God. The life of Christ and his teachings repudiate violence. Jesus said, “All who draw the sword will die by the sword” (Mt. 26:52), and he died on the cross. The Lord taught that we should die for others; he did not teach that we should murder for our own purposes. As the king who was the “slain lamb,” Christ showed us the essential non-violent form of the new kingdom. Therefore the disciples, convinced of non-resistant pacifism, were martyred in the persecution of the Roman Empire.
I.B. CHURCH HISTORY AND VIOLENCE
I.B.1. THE EARLY CHURCH AND NON-VIOLENCE
As a persecuted minority under the powerful militaristic Roman empire the church held to the position of non-violence until the third century. Though the Jewish independence liberation movement in the last half of the 60's and the ensuing destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. ended in the destruction of the nation, Christians did not participate in military fighting. The early church could die for their testimony of faith, but because of their testimony they could not commit murder.
When comparing this kind of early church pacifism with contemporary Christian fundamentalism it becomes clear how different they are. To positively affirm war is to distort Christianity by integrating it with nationalism.
I.B.2. THE VIOLENCE OF THE WEST
This degeneration began after the official recognition of Christianity as the state religion by the fourth century Emperor Constantine. The result was that the church in union with secular political power affirmed military power and began to advocate “just war” theory. The “conversion” of Constantine becomes a parting of the ways and presents a fundamental problem. In the middle of a battle he saw a heavenly vision of the shining cross with the engraved words, “Conquer through this.” In following this vision, he became the Emperor who conquered nations by using as his vanguard in battle a treasure adorned with a golden “cross.” What needs reexamination is whether this “conversion” resulted in the transformation of the state by Christianity as a “state religion” or whether it resulted in the degeneration of the church by the authority of the state.
After the fourth century, in the post-Constantine era, just war theory became the viewpoint of the main faction of Christianity. Through an edict of the Roman Pope in the twelfth century the Crusaders were organized and they were commanded to bring glory to God by destroying pagans and Muslims. This kind of trend has continued until the modern age and present age (Yamauchi, 2003). At the beginning of the Iraq War, the U.S. President called his country's troops “Crusaders,” but after strong protest withdrew the comment.
The violence of Western Christianity is clear in the fifteenth century era of the great ships when the inhabitants of Central and South America were killed on a massive scale. At that time the Pope divided the world by giving Central and South America to Spain, and Africa and Asia to Portugal, such that colonialism was promoted by Western Europe. Such “justice” was certainly only “a mechanism of suppression and disguise” (Ikeda, 2000).
In the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation, both Luther and Calvin followed the just war theory of the Middle Ages. During the Middle Ages and the modern era there has been no major change in the theology of war. The seventeenth century Puritans held to a strong sense of being an elected people who were the new Israel. Because of their immigration to North America, the genocide of the indigenous “Indians” occurred. The design of White Christians to destroy the pagans of colored races amounts to the indiscriminate killing of three million people: the twelfth century Crusades; the seventeenth century massive killing of the former inhabitants of Central, South, and North America; the twentieth century Philippine atrocity, the bombing of Tokyo, the killing of many Japanese civilians with atomic bombs, and the Vietnam war. The twenty-first century bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq is consistent with this.
Publications
